When you see a headline contradicting global warming, do you disregard it out of hand?
Answer:
Excuse me? Gore? Al Gore failed seminary and then a got a degree in law with the help of his father the first Senator. He has very little qualifications to make any proclamations about anything. As for contradicting headlines, you sound like you've accepted the line about the debate being over. I recently did some research for a couple of classes I'm taking for my Master's and the debate is far from over. I suggest that you look up Roy Spenser of NASA and the Michael Crichton debate in New York City. Yes, that Crichton (he went to medical school before becoming a writer) with the multiple Emmys. You can also find websites with the names of over 15,000 scientists, climatologists, and meteorologists that disagree with Gore. I'll let you have the pleasure and learning experience of finding them yourself.
No. I like to know all sides of a situation and will read it and then do a literature search so I can see if there are any peer-reviewed articles that support the headline. It's better to be informed of all sides instead of being single-minded.
I think that Man-Made global warming is a fabrication invented by people who only have their pockets in mind. Why else would they be pushing this issue so strongly? Why won't they hear any other sides of the argument? When has anybody in history really cared about anyone but himself? Never. Why would they start now?
Al Gore made a movie. Movies are generally entertainment, and often while based on fact, serve the purpose of invoking an emotional reaction.
That said, YES, I disregard "anti-global-warming" blah blah the same way I disregard "Anti-Evolution" blah blah. They are both the results of mindless following sheep.
I don't jump on either side and follow 100% of what any ONE person/party says. We have been given a brain, and the ability to think and research on our own. Then come up with our own conclusions.
These are facts from my own observation: When I grew up, we ice skated on ponds, and even rivers every winter. Now, it rarely snows where we live. A flake or two every couple of years. When I grew up, if you put SPF 15 on, you would stay glow in the dark white! Now, we burn through SPF 30. Less Ozone = more sun's rays = warming.
I look at it exactly as I would a headline saying:
"Man claims Earth 6000 years old". or
"Man claims NASA faked moon landings"
It just goes against way too much science.
I don't pay attention to Al Gore much. And certainly not to the details of the science in his movie, which I view as flawed, but having the fundamentals right.
I pay a lot of attention to the IPCC. About their reports, I would agree that there is no way on Earth that the impacts or Man's contributions are any less than they say. Here's why:
"The drafting of reports by the world’s pre-eminent group of climate scientists is an odd process. For many months scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tussle over the evidence. Nothing gets published unless it achieves consensus. This means that the panel’s reports are extremely conservative – even timid. It also means that they are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be."
George Monbiot
You can check my other posts for voluminous references to the peer reviewed science and to the reality of the scientific consensus. I thought I'd just answer your question here, and for once, ignore the skeptics.
I do disregard such nonsense--because that's exactly what it is.
Unlike the fake "skeptics" I do understand science--and looked at what the real scientists had to say. The human origins of our current gloval warming are proven fact--there is no "debate."
Al Gore's presentation is accurate--but that's not suprising. Like any other educated person, he listened to what the scientists had to say--and all he does is relay that information.
Nope...I'll read it...but then if you say look up the people who fund the person who wrote it...you'll more than likely find them to be oil related
It depends on where the headline is printed.
If it's in the National Enquirer, FOX News, or junkscience.com, I dismiss it out of hand.
If it's in Science, Nature, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, I give it great weight.
I usually look to see if it's political BS, or scientifically motivated. Almost always, the politically motivated displays a lack of evidence + their sources so it's not that interesting to read.
Not arguing that Al Gore does not raise some good point. Hate his global warming hype, because believe it is hurting environmental movement. I don't want to see picture of Earth from space that looks like LA on bad day. Climate change is interesting great article in Scientific american year or year and a half ago. Like reading arguments pro and con that are based in science so don't like some articles and lots of sudo science one self promoter dishes out. Like stuff that helps me answer this question: Where did the first snowflake ever on Earth come from.
I don't dismiss anything out of hand just because of its source.
I evaluate the factual assertions and the logic - I weigh it on its own merits.
But I do keep in mind whether that particular source has made ridiculous claims in the past.
Like when Mann argues that the fact that in Britain today they grow varieties of cold-hardy wine grapes that didn't exist 1000 years ago, using methods that didn't exist 1000 years ago, somehow refutes the probative value of the fact that 1000 years ago, they grew the same grapes they did in Provence, using 11th century growing techniques - - that one's so pathetic that it does make me less inclined to give Mann any benefit of the doubt.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: